MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3008754315 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.037

A38 SUBOPTIMAL VACCINATION ADHERENCE IN MOTHERS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE AND THEIR BIOLOGIC-EXPOSED INFANTS

2020· article· en· W3008754315 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hélène Chiarella-Redfern, Bellal Jubran, Cora Constantinescu, Luis Murguía-Favela, Cynthia H. Seow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotavirus vaccineVaccinationPediatricsPregnancyRotavirusObstetricsDiarrheaInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Data suggests that postpartum IBD patients have low self-reported vaccine rates despite being exposed to multiple care providers. To date, there is limited data on vaccine safety in infants exposed to biologic therapies in utero for the treatment of maternal IBD, with only questionnaire style studies and one case report of a fatal outcome post BCG vaccine. This has led to guidelines recommending against live vaccines under 6 months, such as the rotavirus vaccine, in biologic exposed infants. Aims To assess vaccine compliance in mothers with IBD and their infants and evaluate rotavirus safety to help optimize preventative medicine and guide future vaccine recommendations. Methods We obtained data from the University of Calgary’s Pregnancy in IBD Registry from 2012 to 2018 and from provincial vaccination and personal health records. Vaccine rates for Hep-A, Hep-B, Pneu-C-13, Pneu-C-23 and DTap were obtained for 117 mothers who received biologic therapy during pregnancy. Rotavirus (n=74 as it was introduced in ‘14) and DTap-IPV-Hib, Men-C, Pneu-C-13 and MMR (n=117) rates were obtained for infants exposed to biologics in utero. Rotavirus (n=92) and non-rotavirus (n=142) rates for non-biologic exposed infants were also collected. Rotavirus complications, characterized by related emergency room visits, were obtained. Descriptive statistics were performed with chi-square tests. Results We found the following rates of vaccine uptake in the biologic treated mothers: Hep-A (47%), Pneu-C-13 (32%), Pneu-C-23 (36%), Hep-B (75%) and DTap (79%). When comparing biologic and non-biologic exposed infants there were high rates of compliance for recommended vaccines with no differences in DTap-IPV-Hib (91% vs. 89%, p=0.11), Men-C (96% vs. 92%, p=0.80), Pneu-C-13 (95% vs. 93%, p=0.14) and MMR (96% vs. 92%, p=0.80). There was a significant difference in rotavirus rates (20% vs. 87%, n < 0.0001) given the recommendation against vaccination in biologic exposed infants. There was a significant difference in vaccination guideline adherence within the biologic group when comparing inappropriately administered rotavirus vaccines with inappropriately missed recommended vaccines (20% vs. 6%, p=0.02). No infants who received the rotavirus vaccine suffered from intussusception or death nor was there a significant difference in adverse events between the two groups (20% vs 9%; p=0.71). Conclusions The study highlights the need for improved vaccination education and implementation given suboptimal vaccine adherence in biologic treated mothers and the inadvertent administration of the live rotavirus vaccine in their biologic exposed infants. The lack of rotavirus vaccine adverse events shows potential vaccine safety in biologic exposed infants and requires further study. Funding Agencies None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare→French-language works237,207→